In 1755, LeRoy passed the discharge of a Leyden jar through the orbit of a man who was blind from cataract and the patient saw “flames passing rapidly downwards.” Ever since, there has been a fascination with electrically elicited visual perception. The general concepts of electrical stimulation of retinal cells to produce these flashes of light or phosphenes has been known for quite some time. Based on these general principles, some early attempts at devising a prosthesis for aiding the visually impaired have included attaching electrodes to the head or eyelids of patients. While some of these early attempts met with some limited success, these early prosthesis devices were large, bulky and could not produce adequate simulated vision to truly aid the visually impaired.
In the early 1930's, Foerster investigated the effect of electrically stimulating the exposed occipital pole of one cerebral hemisphere. He found that, when a point at the extreme occipital pole was stimulated, the patient perceived a small spot of light directly in front and motionless (a phosphene). Subsequently, Brindley and Lewin (1968) thoroughly studied electrical stimulation of the human occipital cortex. By varying the stimulation parameters, these investigators described in detail the location of the phosphenes produced relative to the specific region of the occipital cortex stimulated. These experiments demonstrated: (1) the consistent shape and position of phosphenes; (2) that increased stimulation pulse duration made phosphenes brighter; and (3) that there was no detectable interaction between neighboring electrodes which were as close as 2.4 mm apart.
As intraocular surgical techniques have advanced, it has become possible to apply stimulation on small groups and even on individual retinal cells to generate focused phosphenes through devices implanted within the eye itself. This has sparked renewed interest in developing methods and apparati to aid the visually impaired. Specifically, great effort has been expended in the area of intraocular retinal prosthesis devices in an effort to restore vision in cases where blindness is caused by photoreceptor degenerative retinal diseases such as retinitis pigmentosa and age related macular degeneration which affect millions of people worldwide.
Neural tissue can be artificially stimulated and activated by prosthetic devices that pass pulses of electrical current through electrodes on such a device. The passage of current causes changes in electrical potentials across neuronal membranes, which can initiate neuron action potentials, which are the means of information transfer in the nervous system.
Based on this mechanism, it is possible to input information into the nervous system by coding the information as a sequence of electrical pulses which are relayed to the nervous system via the prosthetic device. In this way, it is possible to provide artificial sensations including vision.
One typical application of neural tissue stimulation is in the rehabilitation of the blind. Some forms of blindness involve selective loss of the light sensitive transducers of the retina. Other retinal neurons remain viable, however, and may be activated in the manner described above by placement of a prosthetic electrode device on the inner (toward the vitreous) retinal surface. This placement must be mechanically stable, minimize the distance between the device electrodes and the neurons, and avoid undue compression of the neurons.
In 1986, Bullara (U.S. Pat. No. 4,573,481) patented an electrode assembly for surgical implantation on a nerve. The matrix was silicone with embedded iridium electrodes. The assembly fit around a nerve to stimulate it.
Dawson and Radtke stimulated cat's retina by direct electrical stimulation of the retinal ganglion cell layer. These experimenters placed nine and then fourteen electrodes upon the inner retinal layer (i.e., primarily the ganglion cell layer) of two cats. Their experiments suggested that electrical stimulation of the retina with 30 to 100 .mu.A current resulted in visual cortical responses. These experiments were carried out with needle-shaped electrodes that penetrated the surface of the retina (see also U.S. Pat. No. 4,628,933 to Michelson).
The Michelson '933 apparatus includes an array of photosensitive devices on its surface that are connected to a plurality of electrodes positioned on the opposite surface of the device to stimulate the retina. These electrodes are disposed to form an array similar to a “bed of nails” having conductors which impinge directly on the retina to stimulate the retinal cells. Such a device increases the possibility of retinal trauma by the use of its “bed of nails” type electrodes that impinge directly on the retinal tissue.
The art of implanting an intraocular prosthetic device to electrically stimulate the retina was advanced with the introduction of retinal tacks in retinal surgery. De Juan, et al. at Duke University Eye Center inserted retinal tacks into retinas in an effort to reattach retinas that had detached from the underlying choroid, which is the source of blood supply for the outer retina and thus the photoreceptors. See, e.g., E. de Juan, et al., 99 Am. J. Ophthalmol. 272 (1985). These retinal tacks have proved to be biocompatible and remain embedded in the retina, and choroid/sclera, effectively pinning the retina against the choroid and the posterior aspects of the globe. Retinal tacks are one way to attach a retinal array to the retina.
The retina is extraordinarily fragile. In particular, retinal neurons are extremely sensitive to pressure; they will die if even a modest intraocular pressure is maintained for a prolonged period of time. Glaucoma, which is one of the leading causes of blindness in the world, can result from a chronic increase of intraocular pressure of only 10 mm Hg. Furthermore, the retina, if it is perforated or pulled, will tend to separate from the underlying epithelium, which will eventually render it functionless. Thus attachment of a conventional prosthetic retinal electrode device carries with it the risk of damage to the retina, because of the pressure that such a device could exert on the retina.
Byers, et al. received U.S. Pat. No. 4,969,468 in 1990 that disclosed a “bed of nails” electrode array that in combination with processing circuitry amplifies and analyzes the signal received from the tissue and/or which generates signals that are sent to the target tissue. The penetrating electrodes are damaging to the delicate retinal tissue of a human eye and therefore are not applicable to enabling sight in the blind.
In 1992, U.S. Pat. No. 5,109,844 issued to de Juan, et al. on a method of stimulating the retina to enable sight in the blind wherein a voltage stimulates electrodes that are in close proximity to the retinal ganglion cells. A planar ganglion cell-stimulating electrode is positioned on or above the retinal basement membrane to enable transmission of sight-creating stimuli to the retina. The electrode is a flat array containing 64 electrodes.
Norman, et al. received U.S. Pat. No. 5,215,088 in 1993 on a three-dimensional electrode device as a cortical implant for vision prosthesis. The device contains perhaps a hundred small pillars each of which penetrates the visual cortex in order to interface with neurons more effectively. The array is strong and rigid and may be made of glass and a semiconductor material.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,476,494, issued to Edell, et al. in 1995, describes a retinal array held gently against the retina by a cantilever, where the cantilever is anchored some distance from the array. Thus, the anchor point is removed from the area served by the array. This cantilever configuration introduces complexity and it is very difficult to control the restoring force of the cantilever due to varying eye sizes, which the instant invention avoids.
Sugihara, et al. received U.S. Pat. No. 5,810,725 in 1998 on a planar electrode to enable stimulation and recording of nerve cells. The electrode is made of a rigid glass substrate. The lead wires which contact the electrodes are indium tin oxide covered with a conducting metal and coated with platinum containing metal. The electrodes are indium tin oxide or a highly electrically conductive metal. Several lead-wire insulating materials are disclosed including resins.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,935,155, issued to Humayun, et al. in 1999, describes a visual prosthesis and method of using it. The Humayun patent includes a camera, signal processing electronics and a retinal electrode array. The retinal array is mounted inside the eye using tacks, magnets, or adhesives. Portions of the remaining parts may be mounted outside the eye. The Humayun patent describes attaching the array to the retina using retinal tacks and/or magnets. This patent does not address reduction of damage to the retina and surrounding tissue or problems caused by excessive pressure between the retinal electrode array and the retina.
Mortimer's U.S. Pat. No. 5,987,361 disclosed a flexible metal foil structure containing a series of precisely positioned holes that in turn define electrodes for neural stimulation of nerves with cuff electrodes. Silicone rubber may be used as the polymeric base layer. This electrode is for going around nerve bundles and not for planar stimulation.
An alternative approach to stimulating the retina with electrical stimulation is the stimulation of the retinal nerves with drugs.
Various drugs have been developed to assist in the treatment of a wide variety of ailments and diseases. However, in many instances such drugs are not capable of being administered either orally or intravenously without the risk of various detrimental side effects. Systems for administering such drugs have been developed, many of which provide a release rate that reduces the occurrence of detrimental side effects. For example, intravenous ganciclovir (GCV) is effective in the treatment of CMV retinitis in AIDS patients, but bone marrow toxicity limits its usefulness. It is further limited by the risk of sepsis related to permanent indwelling catheters and the inability to receive concurrent therapy with zidovudine (AZT).
One approach utilizes implantable microfluidic delivery systems, as the microchip drug delivery devices of Santini, et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 6,123,861) and Santini, et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5,797,898) or fluid sampling devices, must be impermeable and they must be biocompatible. Greenberg, et al. in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/046,458 and Greenberg, et al. in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/096,183 present novel implantable microfluidic delivery systems for drugs and other materials, both of which are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety. The devices must not only exhibit the ability to resist the aggressive environment present in the body, but must also be compatible with both the living tissue and with the other materials of construction for the device itself. The materials are selected to avoid both galvanic and electrolytic corrosion.
In microchip drug delivery devices, the microchips control both the rate and time of release of multiple chemical substances and they control the release of a wide variety of molecules in either a continuous or a pulsed manner. A material that is impermeable to the drugs or other molecules to be delivered and that is impermeable to the surrounding fluids is used as the substrate. Reservoirs are etched into the substrate using either chemical etching or ion beam etching techniques that are well known in the field of microfabrication. Hundreds to thousands of reservoirs can be fabricated on a single microchip using these techniques.
The physical properties of the release system control the rate of release of the molecules, e.g., whether the drug is in a gel or a polymer form. The reservoirs may contain multiple drugs or other molecules in variable dosages. The filled reservoirs can be capped with materials either that degrade or that allow the molecules to diffuse passively out of the reservoir over time. They may be capped with materials that disintegrate upon application of an electric potential. Release from an active device can be controlled by a preprogrammed microprocessor, remote control, or by biosensor. Valves and pumps may also be used to control the release of the molecules.
A reservoir cap can enable passive timed release of molecules without requiring a power source, if the reservoir cap is made of materials that degrade or dissolve at a known rate or have a known permeability. The degradation, dissolution or diffusion characteristics of the cap material determine the time when release begins and perhaps the release rate.
Alternatively, the reservoir cap may enable active timed release of molecules, requiring a power source. In this case, the reservoir cap consists of a thin film of conductive material that is deposited over the reservoir, patterned to a desired geometry, and serves as an anode. Cathodes are also fabricated on the device with their size and placement determined by the device's application and method of electrical potential control. Known conductive materials that are capable of use in active timed-release devices that dissolve into solution or form soluble compounds or ions upon the application of an electric potential, including metals, such as copper, gold, silver, and zinc and some polymers.
When an electric potential is applied between an anode and cathode, the conductive material of the anode covering the reservoir oxidizes to form soluble compounds or ions that dissolve into solution, exposing the molecules to be delivered to the surrounding fluids. Alternatively, the application of an electric potential can be used to create changes in local pH near the anode reservoir cap to allow normally insoluble ions or oxidation products to become soluble. This allows the reservoir cap to dissolve and to expose the molecules to be released to the surrounding fluids. In either case, the molecules to be delivered are released into the surrounding fluids by diffusion out of or by degradation or dissolution of the release system. The frequency of release is controlled by incorporation of a miniaturized power source and microprocessor onto the microchip.
One solution to achieving biocompatibility, impermeability, and galvanic and electrolytic compatibility for an implanted device is to encase the device in a protective environment. It is well known to encase implantable devices with glass or with a case of ceramic or metal. Schulman, et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5,750,926) is one example of this technique. It is also known to use alumina as a case material for an implanted device as disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 4,991,582. Santini, et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 6,123,861) discuss the technique of encapsulating a non-biocompatible material in a biocompatible material, such as poly(ethylene glycol) or polytetrafluoroethylene-like materials. They also disclose the use of silicon as a strong, non-degradable, easily etched substrate that is impermeable to the molecules to be delivered and to the surrounding living tissue. The use of silicon allows the well-developed fabrication techniques from the electronic microcircuit industry to be applied to these substrates. It is well known, however, that silicon is dissolved when implanted in living tissue or in saline solution.
An alternative approach to microfluidic devices is, for example, is an orally administered pill or capsule that contains a drug encapsulated within various layers of a composition that dissolves over a period of time in the digestive tract, thereby allowing a gradual or slow release of the drug into the system.
Another type of device for controlling the administration of such drugs is produced by coating a drug with a polymeric material permeable to the passage of the drug to obtain the desired effect. Such devices are particularly suitable for treating a patient at a specific local area without having to expose the patient's entire body to the drug. This is advantageous because any possible side effects of the drug could be minimized.
Such systems are particularly suitable for treating ailments affecting the eye. Advances for administering a drug to the external surface of the eye are disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 4,014,335 to Arnold. Arnold describes various ocular inserts that act as a deposit or drug reservoir for slowly releasing a drug into the tear film for prolonged periods. These inserts are fabricated of a flexible polymeric material that is biologically inert, non-allergenic, and insoluble in tear fluid. To initiate the therapeutic programs of these devices, the ocular inserts are placed in the cul-de-sac between the sclera of the eyeball and the eyelid for administering the drug to the eye.
Devices formed of polymeric materials that are insoluble in tear fluid retain their shape and integrity during the course of the needed therapy to serve as a drug reservoir for continuously administering a drug to the eye and the surrounding tissues at a rate that is not effected by dissolution or erosion of the polymeric material. Upon termination of the desired therapeutic program, the device is removed from the cul-de-sac.
Another type of device used for sustained release of a drug to the external surface of the eye, described in U.S. Pat. No. 3,416,530, is manufactured with a plurality of capillary openings that communicate between the exterior of the device and the interior chamber generally defined from a polymeric membrane. While these capillary openings in this construction are effective for releasing certain drugs to the eye, they add considerable complexity to the manufacture of the device because it is difficult to control the size of these openings in large-scale manufacturing using various polymers.
Another device, described in U.S. Pat. No. 3,618,604, does not involve such capillary openings, but instead provides for the release of the drug by diffusion through a polymeric membrane. The device, in a preferred embodiment, as disclosed in that patent, comprises a sealed container having the drug in an interior chamber. Nonetheless, as described in U.S. Pat. No. 4,014,335, certain problems have been identified with such devices such as the difficult task of sealing the margins of the membrane to form the container. In addition, stresses and strains introduced into the membrane walls from deformation during manufacturing of those devices may cause the reservoir to rupture and leak.
Another such device, described in U.S. Pat. No. 4,014,335, comprises a three-layered laminant having a pair of separate and discrete first and third walls formed of a material insoluble in tear fluid with one of the walls formed of a drug release material permeable to the passage of drug and the other wall formed of a material impermeable to the passage of the drug.
Smith, U.S. Pat. No. 5,378,475, discusses sustained release drug delivery devices for selected areas wherein release of the drug is allowed to pass through the device in a controlled manner by using permeable coatings. Parel, U.S. Pat. No. 5,098,443, describes methods of implanting intraocular and intraorbital devices for controlled release of drugs as a polymer biodegrades or as the implant releases the drug by osmosis.
The above described systems and devices are intended to provide sustained release of drugs effective in treating patients at a desired local or systemic level for obtaining certain physiological or pharmacological effects. However, there are many disadvantages associated with their use including the fact that it is often difficult to obtain the desired release rate of the drug. The need for a better release system is especially significant in the treatment of CMV retinitus.
Further situations that would benefit from an improved drug delivery device for interior of an eye include neurotrophic factors, anti-inflammatory, anti-angiogenic (e.g., anti-vegf) anti-viral, anti-bacterial, and anti-neoplastic (i.e., anti cancer) drugs. These various treatments would benefit blindness, caused for example by outer retinal blindness, glaucoma, macular degeneration, diabetic retinopthaly, and reininitis uveitis, to name a few. Thus, there remains a long-felt need in the art for an improved system for providing sustained release of a drug to a patient to obtain a desired local or systemic physiological or pharmacological effect. In addition, all of these devices release their drug into the tear film. If relatively high levels are required inside the eye, such devices are ineffective.